A new policy at the Washington Post will punish its employees for using social media to make critical statements about the paper’s corporate advertisers. The policy was approved by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire head of Amazon who purchased the newspaper in 2013.

Amazon CEO and Wahsington Post owner, Jeff Bezos on an elevator for a meeting with then President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York, Dec. 14, 2016. (AP/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON, D.C.– The Washington Post’s journalistic decline over the past several years has been remarkable, especially following the newspaper’s2013 purchase by Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos, the world’ssecond-richest man after Bill Gates.

In the face of controversies concerning the use ofanonymous and often inaccurate sources andthe publication of false news in order to foment anti-Russia hysteria, the Post is now set for another scandal thanks to a new Bezos-approved company-wide policy that seeks to prevent employee criticism of the newspaper’s corporate backers and advertisers.

The policy, which took effect in May,now prohibits Post employees from using social media in such a way that “adversely affects The Post’s customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers or partners.” According to the policy, the paper’s management team reserves the right to take disciplinary action against violators “up to and including termination of employment.”

A clause of the policycited by the Washingtonian also encourages employees to rat out other employees for potentially violating the policy: “If you have any reason to believe that an employee may be in violation of The Post’s Social Media Policy […] you should contact the Post’s Human Resources Department.”

The Post confirmed the existence of the policy and its more controversial clauses and provisions to the Washingtonian, though the paper’s management later attempted to soothe the nerves of rattled journalistsby assuring them that “no one would get in trouble for such social media activity […] But that’s the way the policy is written.”

While the Post’s own journalists are sure to feel the heat from this new policy, several of the newspaper’s corporate advertisers and backers are likely relieved that critical content targeting them or their products will now be absent from the social media activity of the paper’s employees – and likely its reporting as well.

This new policy offers a simple loophole to corporations that wish to avoid criticism from the Post, as becoming a sponsor of the paper would quickly put an end to any unfavorable coverage.

Among the Washington Post’s advertisers are corporate giants likeGlaxoSmithKline,Bank of America andKoch Industries. With the new policy, social media posts criticizingGlaxoSmithKline’s habit of making false and misleading claims about its products, inflating prices and withholding crucial drug safety information from the government will no longer be made by Post employees.

Long before this latest policy was put into effect, some had speculated that the connections between the CIA and the Post were already affecting its reporting. For example, last year, the Postopenly called for the prosecution of Snowden, despite having previously used the whistleblower’s leaks for their Pulitzer Prize-winning report on illegal NSA spying.

The CIAhas long called for Snowden to be tried for treason within the United States for leaking details of the NSA’s domestic spying program.

While criticism of the CIA is not technically prohibited by the new policy, former Post reporters have suggested that making such criticisms could endanger one’s career. As former Post writer John Hanrahantold Alternet in 2013:

“Post reporters and editors are aware that Bezos, as majority owner of Amazon, has a financial stake in maintaining good relations with the CIA — and this sends a clear message to even the hardest-nosed journalist that making the CIA look bad might not be a good career move.”

With Post employees severely limited in what they can post on social media and discuss in their writing, this new policy will only continue to erode trust in the mainstream media, especially in light of the benefits it may bring to its corporate and government backers.

Within days of starting the war, Saudi Arabia imposed a total land, air and sea blockade, along with targeting vital agriculture and food supply infrastructure that sustains life for the 29 million Yemenis — all of which constitute war crimes under international law.